Subject: Re: Protocol Selection Process Discussion

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:27:44 +0900

Hi,

While I agree that committees are a second choice, sometimes they are 
necessary.  As for not finding unbiased people, I disagree.  I expect 
that there are folks around who can look at these objectively.  There 
are quite a number of knowledgeable participants on this list who do 
not seem to have any of the bones to pick regarding the protocol 
choice.  I would trust the chairs and ADs to find a selection of such 
folks if the need arises.  And the proponents of the protocols would be 
able to recognize whether this was a truly unbiased group.  So, if we 
get to the point of needing a committee, I expect one could be 
assembled.

In terms of the public discussions I will be especially interested 
hearing in the opinions of people already working on, and implementing, 
solutions for ForCES type scenarios.  I will also be interested in 
seeing an analysis done by hardware savvy people of issues relating to 
the degree of ease or difficulty they would have with each of the the 3 
proposals in hardware.

A question:  Is the decision going to be an all or nothing decision for 
one protocol?  Having read all three proposals, I am at the point of 
seeing advantages to all three and weakness is all (not ready to write 
it up, just hand waving at the moment).  While the three protocols have 
different approaches, and thus I see the group as having to pick one 
approach, I am hoping that the best elements of each can be worked into 
the protocol that makes it on to the standards track.

a.

On måndag, sep 15, 2003, at 23:00 Asia/Seoul, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

> No committees please. The mailing list is pretty much dead other
> than from people who believe certain things so i am not sure where you
> will unbiased experts - if you can it will help incase of deadlocks.
> Posting to the mailing list will get the usual suspects responding
> anyways.
> I think the requirements draft should be applied. We shouldnt stop
> some protocol doing a lot of of slicing and dicing but that should get
> no bonus in the evaluation.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
>
> On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 11:49, Putzolu, David wrote:

---

From: Alex Audu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:31:45 -0500

Hello Avri,

I think this is a workable plan.  The draft as to how each protocol meets
requirements will certainly help. Other than how requirements are met, are
there
any other set of criteria (tangible and intangible) that the selection
process will
be based on?  I am also thinking of simplicity (complexity), robustness,
agility (potential processing speed), flexibility,..)

Regards,
Alex.

---

From: Jon Maloy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:59:58 -0400

I think it is too early to do any selection of protocol yet. 
For IETF-58 I am now writing a formal draft for how TIPC
can be used as a base protocol for the Forces protocol, and if 
adopted, this would have an effect on what an upper layer
protocol would need to contain. 
There are several good reasons to consider TIPC, as I see it: 
it is an existing product, and it solves all the topology issues 
(inluding requirement 10, which is Joel's concern) in a very 
simple way. 
I would rather that the WG does not rush to a decision at a time
when we still don't have all the facts on the table.

Regards /Jon Maloy

Alex Audu wrote:

Hello Avri,

I think this is a workable plan.  The draft as to how each protocol
meets

requirements will certainly help. Other than how requirements are met,
are

there

process will

Regards,

Alex.

avri wrote:

Hi,

assembled.

proposals in hardware.

a.

    

anyways.

cheers,

jamal

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 11:49, Putzolu, David wrote

: